9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he admission of this appeal: Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that subsidy of ₹ 10,00,000/received by the assessee was capital in nature and accordingly deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer? While considering the factual aspect whether the amount was subsidy to run the business or not, the Tribunal has considered this issue in par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ially developed areas. With a view to secure balanced development of industries in Gujarat through dispersal of industries in the most backward areas and backward areas, the Government of Gujarat has approved a package of incentives. As a part of this package, Government of Gujarat has introduced this scheme. In this scheme, the assessee was entitled for both the incentives, capital investment sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e or capital will have to be determined having regard to the purpose for which the subsidy is given. The source of the fund is quite immaterial. However, if the purpose is to help the assessee to set up its business or complete a project the monies must be treated as having been received for capital purposes. But if monies are given to the assessee for assisting him for carrying out the business o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 10,00,000/. This appeal on this issue is allowed. In spite of time granted, learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show that the subsidy was given to run the business. When the subsidy was not given to run the business, we see no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. No substantial question of law does arise. The appeal stands dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
